Slashdot Mirror
Obama Administration Supports Journalist Arrested For Recording Cops
New submitter SplatMan_DK writes "Ars Technica reports that the Obama Administration has filed a brief in support of a Maryland photojournalist who says he was arrested and beaten after he took photographs of the police arresting two other men. The brief by the Justice Department argues that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to photograph the actions of police officers in public places and prohibits police officers from arresting journalists for exercising those rights. Context: 'Garcia says that when Officer Christopher Malouf approached him, Garcia identified himself as a member of the press and held up his hands to show he was only holding a camera. But Malouf "placed Mr. Garcia in a choke hold and dragged him across the street to his police cruiser," where he "subjected him to verbal and physical abuse." According to Garcia's complaint, Malouf "forcibly dragged Mr. Garcia across the street, throwing him to the ground along the way, inflicting significant injuries." Garcia says Malouf "kicked his right foot out from under him, causing Mr. Garcia to hit his head on the police cruiser while falling to the ground." Garcia claims that Malouf took the video card from Garcia's camera and put it in his pocket. The card was never returned. Garcia was charged with disorderly conduct. In December 2011, a judge found Garcia not guilty.'"
When a lowly citizen destroys evidence, it's a crime.
Support is not writing a brief. Support is indicting the officers in question for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. These officers deserve the same treatment Obama's DOJ gave Aaron Swartz.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The officers should be charged with theft and assault. They should also be fired.
Which is why if you are going to record the police, make sure it's uploading live or will e-mail the pictures away from the clumsy hands of the law
There's this app for New Yorkers evidently. Any suggestions from anyone for those of us who don't live in NY?
People like you crack me up. You do realize that a drone is just a weapons platform right? If you can conceive of a reason why the US government might reasonable kill an American citizen with a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, or a tank, why would the use of a drone somehow be any different? Surely the test is whether or not the killing was legal, not what weapons platform was used to deliver the strike. OMG, they haz robots!!!!!
Life needs more saving throws.
I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution.
I think this is where a [Citation Needed] is justified. At the parent stated, this make believe scenario was created by Rand Paul. In my opinion, it was done for one reason. Rand Paul personal ambition. The nation has always had a top list of most wanted, and dead or alive for a terrorist isn't a problem. It wasn't a problem for Bush, it wasn't a problem for Clinton, and it wasn't a problem for Bush Sr. They don't stop and try to take these folks into custody. If someone has declared them intentions and is clearly in collusion with a terrorist cell, then they have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and have declared themselves an enemy of the state.
Police will already shoot and kill an armed and dangerous person if they pull a weapon and the officer fears for his life. Now take that same scenario, apply it to a suspected terrorist with a dirty bomb. I have zero issue with said terrorist getting his ass blown away before he might harm hundreds or thousands in an OKC style bombing, or drastically worse, a dirty nuclear weapon. Walking up to such a person, and trying to arrest them and read them their miranda rights is more likely to just get them to trigger the bomb. A drone can take a person out before they have to to react and do such a thing.
The Constitution already charges the president with protecting it's citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. Holder already stated that using a drone, on a common American Citizen, siting in a Starbucks, would be an unnecessary use of force. That is not an ambiguous statement. I don't care what 'party' a President hails from. Any President who used a drone on innocent civilians without an overwhelming need to protect thousands more, would be impeached, and likely thrown in prison. Rand Paul claiming that this President could somehow do just that, and not face any consequences as a result was pure rhetoric, and beneath the dignity that the Office of the President deserves as a leader of the United States. Even his own party members called him out on it.
Lastly, Rand himself said he had no problem and would expect the President to use a drone to take out a terrorist who was an imminent threat in such a situation.
That 13 hours was all for the benefit of Rand, and no one else.
Rand Paul is the one who thought up the scenario, so we should be appalled and outraged at Rand Paul?
Yes we should. Senator Paul was just obfuscating the real issue. Killing citizens with drones is not an issue: the rules should be exactly the same as any other use of deadly force. It is not different because it is "with a drone". The issue is spying on citizens. When it comes to spying, drones are a game changer (in good ways and bad).
Free speech zones are for stifling protesters.
In direct contradiction to the right to free speech.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I do question that this kill list contains anything but terrorists, or suspected terrorists.
It doesn't seem to take much to become a "suspect terrorist" these days. Everyone gets molested at airports for being possible terrorists, and being a suspected terrorist is just a step up from that.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!